I've already commented on a few motions - so just before AIM starts, my five cents on the remaining ones:
Mtn1: I like the new definitions of the terms "programme", "activity" and "project". It makes perfect sense and roots out confusion in the communication within CISV and to outsiders.
Mtn2: I also like the term "experimental programme". Looking back at IPP, having experienced the silly process of being approves as "activity" first, later as a "programme", with lots of unnecessary red tape, I can only support any effort to make the development of new programmes more straight-forward - even if the existing 7 programmes seem to be enough to deal with at this moment in time.
Mtn6: PDPEF is a document that has stirred quite some emotions in the past 2 years. While CISV international tried to implement a simple quality control tool, the grassroots went nuts with yet another bureaucratic obligation. Personally, I think the PDPEF is the first honest approach trying to see whether our camps fulfill their goals, with some room of improvement of course. It's only logical that the importance of this form must be stressed, and if there is no other way, then it has to be through a penalty. Nevertheless, I sense some communication trouble here, so further effort needs to go into training chapters and staff, why the PDPEF is central to running CISV on a high level.
Mtn7: This is hard for a non-lawyer-non-native-speaker to understand, and I have too little patience to work myself through the "further-reading documents", but it seems the first step into self-insurance. Since this has been a consensus for years, I'm a little surprised this took so long. With AIG in bad shape, this can't happen fast enough. Without insurance CISV is dead. This could happen from one day to another. Remember what happened to Canada in 2002.
Mtn8: This motions take the opportunity of a necessary re-organization of the Educational Development and Research Committee (EDR) to initiate a general re-ordering of the so-called "Service Committees" (as opposed to the Programme Committees). I especially like the linking of an IO employee with a team chair to co-ordinate the work being done. Furthermore this is a great chance to set priorities according to a strategic plan, that still needs to be approved. BTW, CISV Germany has been trying to re-organize EDR and ILTC many times in the past, but with little support. I guess now is a better time.
Mtn9: The alcohol issue has been jammed between morality, culture and risk-managment for the last 2 years. The solution provided here seems to be a more moderate one, as opposed to a suggestion to ban alcohol from all programmes. With my individual set of moral and culture, but also in the light of practicability, I prefer this solution.
Mtn11: It's only logical that we need an independent person to arrange for elections. However, I wonder if travel and accomodation could be saved by moving this task to somebody already present, like the ODC chair, or an IO employee, or even an honorary counselor.
Mtn12: Cathy has always impressed me with her enormous contribution to the organization as well as her talent to broker many a difficult issue in CISV international. No question, she should be elected honorary counselor. It remains the question, whether every former president should become one...? (Let's get Arne-Christian a "future HC"-t-shirt!?)
Mtn13: Congrats Algeria and Peru for promotion. Too bad, no other countries are making their way upwards on this list.
All in all some good stuff in those motions, and except the silly Canadian MSN-motion, I would probably approve all of them. The new concept for host fees and the new concept for the service committees seem interesting, and have quite some potential of changing things for the better. Nevertheless, I do miss a bit the flavour of courage to move forward. It seems as if we're simply trying to keep our sheep together, making sure no one gets lost, without a vision to move our herd in a higher pace. My objective for this website is to be a source of inspiration, how in fact CISV could move at a faster pace, and in what direction. Please stay tuned! (And enjoy AIM, if you're going.)
Mtn1: I like the new definitions of the terms "programme", "activity" and "project". It makes perfect sense and roots out confusion in the communication within CISV and to outsiders.
Mtn2: I also like the term "experimental programme". Looking back at IPP, having experienced the silly process of being approves as "activity" first, later as a "programme", with lots of unnecessary red tape, I can only support any effort to make the development of new programmes more straight-forward - even if the existing 7 programmes seem to be enough to deal with at this moment in time.
Mtn6: PDPEF is a document that has stirred quite some emotions in the past 2 years. While CISV international tried to implement a simple quality control tool, the grassroots went nuts with yet another bureaucratic obligation. Personally, I think the PDPEF is the first honest approach trying to see whether our camps fulfill their goals, with some room of improvement of course. It's only logical that the importance of this form must be stressed, and if there is no other way, then it has to be through a penalty. Nevertheless, I sense some communication trouble here, so further effort needs to go into training chapters and staff, why the PDPEF is central to running CISV on a high level.
Mtn7: This is hard for a non-lawyer-non-native-speaker to understand, and I have too little patience to work myself through the "further-reading documents", but it seems the first step into self-insurance. Since this has been a consensus for years, I'm a little surprised this took so long. With AIG in bad shape, this can't happen fast enough. Without insurance CISV is dead. This could happen from one day to another. Remember what happened to Canada in 2002.
Mtn8: This motions take the opportunity of a necessary re-organization of the Educational Development and Research Committee (EDR) to initiate a general re-ordering of the so-called "Service Committees" (as opposed to the Programme Committees). I especially like the linking of an IO employee with a team chair to co-ordinate the work being done. Furthermore this is a great chance to set priorities according to a strategic plan, that still needs to be approved. BTW, CISV Germany has been trying to re-organize EDR and ILTC many times in the past, but with little support. I guess now is a better time.
Mtn9: The alcohol issue has been jammed between morality, culture and risk-managment for the last 2 years. The solution provided here seems to be a more moderate one, as opposed to a suggestion to ban alcohol from all programmes. With my individual set of moral and culture, but also in the light of practicability, I prefer this solution.
Mtn11: It's only logical that we need an independent person to arrange for elections. However, I wonder if travel and accomodation could be saved by moving this task to somebody already present, like the ODC chair, or an IO employee, or even an honorary counselor.
Mtn12: Cathy has always impressed me with her enormous contribution to the organization as well as her talent to broker many a difficult issue in CISV international. No question, she should be elected honorary counselor. It remains the question, whether every former president should become one...? (Let's get Arne-Christian a "future HC"-t-shirt!?)
Mtn13: Congrats Algeria and Peru for promotion. Too bad, no other countries are making their way upwards on this list.
All in all some good stuff in those motions, and except the silly Canadian MSN-motion, I would probably approve all of them. The new concept for host fees and the new concept for the service committees seem interesting, and have quite some potential of changing things for the better. Nevertheless, I do miss a bit the flavour of courage to move forward. It seems as if we're simply trying to keep our sheep together, making sure no one gets lost, without a vision to move our herd in a higher pace. My objective for this website is to be a source of inspiration, how in fact CISV could move at a faster pace, and in what direction. Please stay tuned! (And enjoy AIM, if you're going.)
Hey Nick
Wonderful page as always.
Surpriced that I haven't seen comments on DOC 36 - Proposed strategic plan 2010-2012. Seems it would be something Statler and Waldorf would find interesting.
Regarding Mtn, I'm a bit surprices by your seemingly approvel of the hostfee motion. My first thought on this, is that is sad the Taskforce have not succeded in explaining the goals for the review and the proposed system, and have used very little thought into analyzing the consequences of the system.
Apart from that the 9 pounds a day system, seem to do only one thing, and thats putting the cost of hosting towards our participants, making recruiting from different socio-economic groups even harder than as of now.
The hospitality system has one major fault, making sure that "overhosting" counrtries still has no incentives to host more, since as with the 50 villages we host as of know, you will never be able to spent more than V points from 5 hosted villages.
Sören: It's just as I said, the consequences any decision taken here qre difficult to understand. It's like changing the rules of a game, while playing it. Both of your points seem valid - the hosting fees load an even higher burden on the participants (as opposed to the hosting chapter or the NAs members) and I agree that those NAs that are huge in hosting, don't have an incentive to grow. Nevertheless, there is the idea of changing points for other programmes, and also one more important issue: The motivation to run CISV must come from a gut feeling that we are doing the right thing. No hospitality point will ever make a person commit to hosting a CISV programme, if he or she doesn't believe in the philosophy. Look at this silly blog I'm maintaining - do I ever receive hosting points (or host fees, for that matter)?
Oh, and Statler and Waldorf will get back on DOC 36...
Søren: With the new proposal you can take your surplus V points and buy Y or S or C delegates/ions. You will have a higher priority than those that currently get delegations for free (but lower priority than those with Y or S or C points).
Additionally the new system is actually transparent, something the previous is/was not. :)
Solving the overhoster problem is hard; there is essentially two things that can be done:
- Let them send delegations everywhere (which the new system will allow to a larger extent).
- Pay them.
If you see any other structural approaches I would love to hear it.
I don't at the moment, I'm just seeing a process that was started in the wrong direction, and thereby not giving the best solution.
If the organisation had spent some time agreeing on what we wanted, we might have given the Taskforce a decent job to finish.
I might be wrong, but felt we have given a group of volunteers an impossible task to solve, because we haven't decided what the goal was. And yes I'm aware of prior motions had a purpose, but not one the taskforce was bound at.
Søren: I agree. A devils-style Robin Hood approach would be to say that strong NAs/overhosters should indeed support weak NAs, and that no host fees should be awarded.
So the question would be if we want to grow strong NAs stronger, or grow weaker NAs stronger.
It's funny to read LLL and Sorens dialogue here..., anyway, I think I'm a bit on Soren's side:
Who profits from the host fee? Those that are "overhosting" anyway. Weaker NAs will be punished with higher participation fees. No good.
I also agree on Soren's point, that the whole motion on hosting doesn't specify what the goal of the changed rules is, besides making it more transparent and fair. That's why I also mistrust GBR's AIM motion, where no goal of AIM restructuring is specified.
you guys are aware that all programmes besides village (and IPP too, I think) don't have host fees, right?
sorry - they HAVE host fees.
village and IPP don't.